Traveling? which diocese rules to obey?

[MooCowSteph]

When we travel, are we bound by the diocesean (sp?) rules from the diocese we live in, or the one to which we’ve traveled? Especially when traveling abroad, there can be differences in Holy Days of Obligation, maybe fasting rules and abstinance rules regarding meat, and probably others I can’t think of right now. What do ya think?

 

[war_eagle]

When we travel, are we bound by the diocesean (sp?) rules from the diocese we live in, or the one to which we’ve traveled? Especially when traveling abroad, there can be differences in Holy Days of Obligation, maybe fasting rules and abstinance rules regarding meat, and probably others I can’t think of right now. What do ya think?

You mean they have different rules?

That kind of puts a hole in the Roman Catholic argument that “Protestantism” and Baptists aren’t really Christians because they believe different things, doesn’t it?

 

[StatCrux]

You are bound to your diocesan bishop’s laws regardless of your location. Thus if your bishop says X is a holy day of obligation, but you are in another bishop’s diocese who says it is not, you are still obligated to go to Mass.

This has been asked before. If you want citations, check the Ask an Apologist forum.

-SC

 

[cameron_lansing]

From what you depict, no and no.

A law of an episcopal conference or of a diocese regarding a day of precept to participate at Mass or a day of precept to observe penance is a particular law. These would be presumed to be territorial rather than personal laws. Only universal laws of these precepts would bind a traveller everywhere. Particular laws of an episcopal conference or diocese bind those with domicile in the territory and who are actually in the territory.

A diocesan bishop can determine special feast days or days of penance for their dioceses or places but only for individual occasions (c. 1244 §2). If he does so, then canons 12 and 13 would be the appropriate canons to consider, and I will cite them in part.

Canon 12 §3. Laws established for a particular territory bind those for whom they were issued as well as those who have a domicile or a quasi-domicile there and who at the same time are actually residing there, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 13.

Canon 13 §1 Particular laws are not presumed to be personal but territorial, unless it is otherwise evident.

Canon 13 §2 Travelers are not bound: 1) by the particular laws of their own territory as long as they are absent from it unless either the transgression of those laws causes harm in their own territory or the laws are personal; 2) by the laws of the territory in which they are present, with the exception of those laws which provide for public order, which determine the formalities of acts, or which regard immovable goods located in the territory

A particular law regarding a day of precept, such as one issued by a diocesan bishop, would not strike me as leading to harm in that original diocese. Nor would it seem to me that such a law provides for the public order, determines the formality of acts, or regards immovable goods located in the territory.

However, while a territorial law of the home diocese would not bind one travelling outside of it, and a territorial law of the diocese in which one is travelling would not bind the traveller, the purpose of laws of participation and penance should be considered.

Why does the Church have feast days of obligation and days of penance? I have a feeling I don’t need to elaborate. Even when a law does not bind, there is a spiritual advantage behind it in most cases, as it is here.

So while neither set of particularlaws might be binding on a traveller (only universal laws bind everywhere), some kind of observance is strongly encouraged. The adage, when in Rome …, might be helpful. One may freely choose to observe what is not obligatory in terms of the canons above.

Perhaps StatCrux is aware of, or thinking of, something else. If not, a charitable correction of my opinion is welcomed.

 

[Digitonomy]

A law of an episcopal conference or of a diocese regarding a day of precept to participate at Mass or a day of precept to observe penance is a particular law. These would be presumed to be territorial rather than personal laws. Only universal laws of these precepts would bind a traveller everywhere. Particular laws of an episcopal conference or diocese bind those with domicile in the territory and who are actually in the territory.

I understand that particular laws of the traveller’s own diocese and the diocese which he visits are not binding, while universal law is. Since particular law in the US, Australia, Canada, and many other countries shortens the prescribed list for the universal Church, would a Catholic from Anchorage visiting Vancouver be theoretically obliged to participate in the longer list of holy days specified in Canon 1246?

Can. 1246 §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The following days must also be observed: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, and All Saints.

§2. With the prior approval of the Apostolic See, however, the conference of bishops can suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I understand that particular laws of the traveller’s own diocese and the diocese which he visits are not binding, while universal law is. Since particular law in the US, Australia, Canada, and many other countries shortens the prescribed list for the universal Church, would a Catholic from Anchorage visiting Vancouver be theoretically obliged to participate in the longer list of holy days specified in Canon 1246?

No. The longer list would have been subject to the provision of that second paragraph.

Once the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops was done with transfers or suppressions with the approval of the Holy See back in 1988, I believe only Christmas and the feast of Mary the Mother of God were left as binding on members of the Latin rite dioceses of that episcopal conference and were in its territory on the feast day.

There is a nuanced point that I did not mention though. As noted above, one can be subject because one has canonical domicile in a territory to its laws and is actually residing there.

But that is also true of a quasi domicile, a kind of temporary residence that can be established. It would not apply to a mere visitor, but it could apply to someone who temporarily lives in Vancouver, say, while attending college, or on a long term work assignment. See canons 100 and 102.

Anyone in such a situation would be advised to consult with the local parish priest after presenting the details of his or her situation.

 

[Digitonomy]

No. The longer list would have been subject to the provision of that second paragraph.

Once the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops was done with transfers or suppressions with the approval of the Holy See back in 1988, I believe only Christmas and the feast of Mary the Mother of God were left as binding on members of the Latin rite dioceses of that episcopal conference and were in its territory on the feast day.

This seems reasonable. However, I don’t understand how for a mere visitor that fits with Canon 13 §2, (2) which you cited above. I suspect I’m missing a comma or phrase in the wordy canons. Does this qualify as one of the three exceptions listed in subsection (2)?

Canon 13 §2 Travelers are not bound:
…2) by the laws of the territory in which they are present, with the exception of those laws which provide for public order, which determine the formalities of acts, or which regard immovable goods located in the territory

 

[Sr_Sally]

I have no idea what the offical ruling is. I have done the following when travelling: first I would let my home parish priest know that I was travelling. I would ensure that my offering would be paid while I was gone and I would ask the priest for advice about this question. Then when I arrived, I would follow the norms of the area I was in to the best of my ability. So for example, if I arrived on what turned out to be a local Holy Day of Obligation or fasting and I didn’t know about it ahead of time, I would not feel bound. If however, I found out a day would be observed several days into my trip, I would try my best to comply with the ruling. I would also make some small donation to each church where I attended Mass.

 

[KCT]

You are bound to your diocesan bishop’s laws regardless of your location. Thus if your bishop says X is a holy day of obligation, but you are in another bishop’s diocese who says it is not, you are still obligated to go to Mass.

Though it won’t be a holy day Mass if the 2nd bishop says it’s not a holy day! It would be daily Mass. —KCT

 

[cameron_lansing]

“However, I don’t understand how for a mere visitor that fits with Canon 13 §2, (2) which you cited above.”

One who visits a place has to travel to get there.

In the context of the question, I understood a mere visitor as one who is travelling through or in one territory (Archdiocese of Vancouver and the Canadian episcopal conference) but has a proper domicile in another territory (Archdiocese of Anchorage and the US episcopal conference). The visitor does not intend to establish residence in the first territory (Vancouver). He or she will visit, warm up, go to a Canucks’ hockey game, stay with his brother Sid and the family, and then return to Alaska.

A particular law of a territory requiring participation in Mass or of observing penitential practice falls into none of the categories in either canon 13 §2, 1º or 13 §2, 2º . Thus it would not bind the traveller.

On the other hand, I did not address the possibility that the traveller could be a vagrant. I suppose that could be touched on though.

Vagrants have no fixed domicile and are bound to any particular laws of the territory in which they actually are. A “knight of the road” finding himself in Vancouver would be bound to its particular laws, regardless of where he jumped on the train and regardless of where he intends to jump off.

 

[Digitonomy]

A particular law of a territory requiring participation in Mass or of observing penitential practice falls into none of the categories in either canon 13 §2, 1º or 13 §2, 2º . Thus it would not bind the traveller.

Sorry I wasn’t clear, although I’m glad it prompted the interesting note about vagrants. What I meant was that since the traveller wouldn’t be bound by particular law, would his obligation revert to that specified for the universal Church (in this case entailing an increase in holy days of obligation)?